Facts: For many years the US Forest Service allowed the use of dogs in deer hunting in Kisatchie National Forest (forest). In 2009 the Service proposed banning hunting deer with dogs, and after significant consultation the ban was adopted in 2012.

The Plaintiff – an organisation representing the interests of deer hunters using dogs – challenged the decision and issued proceedings in the US District Court. It was asserted that the Service’s decision was arbitrary and capricious pursuant to 5 USC §§702 and 706 of the Administrative Procedures Act. The application was dismissed: Louisiana Sportsmen Alliance LLC v Vilsack, 984 F.Supp.2d 600 (W.D. La. 2013). The plaintiff appealed. On appeal the defendant for the first time raised an argument that the plaintiff lacked standing to sue.

Held: Per curiam, allowing the appeal –

1. Standing to sue is a jurisdictional requirement which cannot be waived and which may be raised by the parties or Court at any time.

(a) Its asserted legally protected interest is relevant to its purposes.

(b) One of its members would have standing to sue in their own right. To satisfy this requirement, one of the organisation’s members must show that –

(i) They have suffered (or will imminently suffer) a specific identifiable invasion of a legally protected interest.
(ii) The defendant’s challenged action is fairly identifiable as the cause of the injury.
(iii) It is likely (viz., not speculative) that a favourable decision will redress the injury.

(c) Participation of individual members in the proceeding is not required.

3. The plaintiff had neither alleged nor established any details regarding its nature or purpose, nor that any of its members had suffered a specific injury. Accordingly it had failed to establish standing and so the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider the matter.

Facts: On 31 August 2008 one Mary Verdugo (the deceased), aged 49 years, suffered a cardiac arrest at the Target store in Pico Rivera. There was no automated external defibrillator (AED) in the store. Paramedics were called and attended within minutes. They were unable to revive the deceased.

The deceased’s mother and brother issued proceedings in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against the defendant on the basis that it been negligent in not having an AED available for use in an emergency. On the defendant’s application the matter was transferred to the Federal District Court, which then granted the defendant’s application to dismiss the matter on the basis that Target was not obliged to make an AED available for use by customers. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which referred a question of law to the Supreme Court of California: Verdugo v Target Corp., 704 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir., 2012). The referred question was expressed as follows –

“Whether, under California law, the common law duty of reasonable care that defendant Target Corporation … owes to its business customers includes an obligation to obtain and make available on its business premises an … AED … for use in a medical emergency”.

The Supreme Court of California responded that the defendant’s common law duty of care to its cutomers did not include a duty to acquire and make available an AED for use in a medical emergency: Verdugo v Target Corp., (2014) H&FLR 2014-55; 59 Cal.4th 312 (2014).

Held: Per curiam, dismissing the appeal, that the District Court’s decision that Target did not have a relevant common law duty of care was consistent with the Supreme Court’s statement of Californian law and so the decision was affirmed.

Per Pregerson J, obiter, that stores like Target have a moral obligation to provide AEDs for use in a medical emergency. If that moral obligation is not recognised by the stores, it would be appropriate for the matter to be considered by the legislature.